Elsey v Lutyens
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 20 February 1850 |
| Date | 20 February 1850 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 68 E.R. 314
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
[159] elsey v. lutyens. Feb. 9, 12, 20, 1850. A conveyance of lands in Middlesex by settlement upon the marriage of the settlor, registered under the statute 7 Ann. c. 20, is effectual against a prior unregistered conveyance, notwithstanding the party claiming under the settlement had notice of the unregistered conveyance after the marriage, but before the registry of his settlement. . A party having a legal title may sustain a bill in equity to recover deeds, without first having established his title at law, where a deed to be recovered would be the proper evidence in a trial at law to enforce the legal right against the tenant in possession of the property in question, and that notwithstanding the evidence furnished by the deed might have been obtained by means other than a suit in equity. Decree as between the claimant of property and the trustee who claimed to hold the same property in trust for an infant Defendant, reserving the right of the infant Defendant. Position, duty and liability of a trustee for infants of an estate created by an invalid deed or a deed of doubtful validity, and which is impeached by other parties. In 1833 William Mair devised a freehold house in1 Kensington to his daughter, Lady Wetherall, in tail, with remainders over. Lady Wetherall died in June 1846, leaving one daughter, Eliza Henrietta, then the widow of a Mr. Wetherall, by whom she had a daughter, Frederica Charlotte. In August 1847 Eliza Henrietta married the Plaintiff, William Elsey, and previous to, and in consideration of, that marriage she executed a disentailing deed, and conveyed the premises to the use of herself until the marriage, and thereupon to the use of the Plaintiff in fee. This deed was dated the 6th of August 1847. It was duly enrolled under the Fines and Recoveries Act (3 & 4 W. 4, c. 74), and was, after the marriage had taken place, registered pursuant to the Act for the registration of deeds in the county of Middlesex (7 Anne, c. 20). After the marriage the Plaintiff was informed of a deed, dated the 25th of February 1845, executed by Lady Wetherall, and enrolled under the statute 3 & 4 William IV. c. 74, whereby she conveyed the premises to the Defendant, Lutyens, and other trustees, since deceased, to such uses as she should appoint; and in default of appointment to her own use for life, and after her decease to the use of the said Eliza Henrietta, her daughter, for life, for her separate use, without power of anticipation, and after her decease to the use of Frederica Charlotte, the daughter of Henrietta, 8 HAKE, 160. ELSEY V. LUTYENS 315 and the heirs of her body, with remainders over. This deed was not registered under the statute 7 Anne, e. 20. [160] Soon after the Plaintiff received notice of the existence of the deed of February 1825 he caused the deed of August 1847 to be registered, as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ford v White
...were not affected by the notice to Parkes. On this point Peacock v. Burt (Coote on Mortgages, 2d ed. p. 693), and Elsey v. Lutyens (8 Hare, 159), were cited. [123] Mr. Craig and Mr. Schonberg, for White. Mr. Chandless, for the assignees of Copland. the master of the rolls [Sir John Rorailly......
-
Benham v Keane
...the debt which was the foundation of the judgment [689] was first contracted ; and this is not attempted to be proved : Elsey v. Lutyens (8 Hare, 159). Then the 18th section of the Middlesex Registry Act is conclusive. The language is the same as in the Statute of Frauds. Johnson v. Holdswo......
-
Hunt v Neve
...even if we had received it before registration, would have been too late, as our money had been previously advanced : Elsey v. Lutyens (8 Hare, 159). Very express notice is necessary in order to postpone a registered document: Jolland v. Stainbridge (3 Ves. 478); Wyatt v. Harwell (19 Ves. 4......
-
Collis v Hibernian Bank and Others
...Mumford v. StohwasserELR L. R. 18 Eq. 556. Allen v. KnightENR 5 Hare, 272. Riddick v. Glennon 6 Ir. Jur. (O. S.), 39. Elsey v. LytyensENR 8 Hare, 159. Baker v. Nottingham Bank 7 Times' Rep. 235. Lord Sheffield's CaseELR 13 App. Cas 333. Simmons v. London Joint Stock BankELR [1892] A. C. 201......